Al-Akhbar is currently going through a transitional phase whereby the English website is available for Archival purposes only. All new content will be published in Arabic on the main website (www.al-akhbar.com).

Al-Akhbar Management

By Max Blumenthal - Sun, 2012-02-26 08:01-

Few congressional candidates have excited the progressive base of the Democratic party as much as consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren has. With her tenacious advocacy for a consumer protection agency to fight unfair lending practices and her consistent framing of economic issues in terms of structural inequality has earned her enthusiastic promotion from major progressive figures from Markos Moulitsas to Rachel Maddow to Michael Moore.

Warren has focused her race against incumbent Republican Senator Scott Brown almost entirely around issues of economic justice, placing her quixotic battle for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at the center of her campaign narrative. During an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Warren boasted that she succeeded in creating the bureau despite opposition from "the toughest lobbying force ever assembled on the face of the earth."

While progressives celebrate Warren for her fight against the big banks and the financial industry's lobbying arm, they have kept silent over the fact that she has enlisted with another powerful lobby that is willing to sabotage America's economic recovery in order to advance its narrow interests. It is AIPAC, the key arm of the Israel lobby; a group that is openly pushing for a US war on Iran that would likely trigger a global recession, as the renowned economist Nouriel Roubini recently warned. The national security/foreign policy position page on Warren's campaign website reads as though it was cobbled together from AIPAC memos and the website of the Israeli Foreign Ministry by the Democratic Party hacks who are advising her. It is pure boilerplate that suggests she knows about as much about the Middle East as Herman "Uzbeki-beki-stan-stan" Cain, and that she doesn't care.

Warren's statement on Israel consumes far more space than any other foreign policy issue on the page (she makes no mention of China, Latin America, or Africa). To justify what she calls the "unbreakable bond" between the US and Israel, Warren repeats the thoughtless cant about "a natural partnership resting on our mutual commitment to democracy and freedom and on our shared values." She then declares that the United States must reject any Palestinian plans to pursue statehood outside of negotiations with Israel. While the US can preach to the Palestinians about how and when to demand the end of their 45-year-long military occupation, Warren says the US "cannot dictate the terms" to Israel.

Warren goes on to describe Iran as "a significant threat to the United States," echoing a key talking point of fear-mongering pro-war forces. She calls for "strong sanctions" and declares that the "United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon" -- a veiled endorsement of a military strike if Iran crosses the constantly shifting American "red lines." Perhaps the only option Warren does not endorse or implicitly support is diplomacy. Her foreign policy views are hardly distinguishable from those of her Republican rival, who also marches in lockstep with AIPAC.

The same progressives who refused to vet Barack Obama's views on foreign policy when he ran for president in 2008, and who now feel betrayed that he is not the liberal savior they imagined him to be, are repeating their mistake with Warren. With AIPAC leading the push for war at the height of an election campaign, there is no better time to demand accountability from candidates like Warren. Who does she serve? The liberal grassroots forces that made her into a populist hero or the lobby seeking to drag the US into a dubious, potentially catastrophic war? It is far better for progressives to grill her on her foreign policy positions before the campaign is over than after the next war begins.

Comments

A question: Is Scott Brown's position on AIPAC and Israel in general different from or same as Warren's? If they are the same, a voter's choice is to choose a candidate based on other issues or don't vote at all. If you would vote for Warren otherwise but stay home because of her support by/for AIPAC, then you are actually casting a vote for Brown. Is that what you want?

Where is the evidence that I supported Hillary Clinton, made "pro-Clinton videos" or tried to get John Legend to endorse her? I did a friendly interview with John Legend on camera at the Democratic Convention about his support for Obama and that was about it. If I wrote anything in support of Hillary, then where is it?

Sad read. Good piece. Clearly the days of being able to vote for anyone without holding one's nose are long gone. I look forward to your interview with Warren so this matter can be the subject of further discussion.

I just threw up a little in my mouth. I feel so much the easily manipulated american, being laughed at in the shadows by the true managers of the USA, AIPAC,Wall Street ect. The stupid goyim and all that.

It was as usual someone who grew up in wartime and post-war Europe who first flagged the Warren harpy for me but as usual I wasn't paying attention. Can't an of these idiot savants be trusted?
But after awhile she seemed to wear thin.

Another group that really is bothering me is the Center for American Progress, I looked up their position so to speak on Iran and yes it's the compassionate bombing, humanitarian killing theme song all over again.
For the life of me I never thought the reason for being an American would be to kill Arabs for some unexplained bonding with nut case Zionists.
Iraq just stopped buying the rice of American farmers and some real dim bulbs are complaining that they are ungrateful!
I also had this wired internet research venture that I did that seemed to point to an Israeli Bank that was member of the Federal Reserve. That kind of of freaked me out enough but it seems that in reality they pay for what they want and the wishes of citizens are as important as the wishes of turkeys come XMAS.
The time for a revolution is near.

When I took note of the large sums of money supporting Ms. Warren I suspected she was not the progressive she purports to be.

Do we really need one more US congress person willing to grovel before the agents for Israel? Actually, were she to win she would just be replacing another Zionist puppet, Scott Brown. He ran for senate as an unknown longshot -- and thus free of the control of the Israel Crime Family -- but rolled over as soon as he was given the chance

Not surprising. EW has pretty much worked hand in glove with Obama
et al all along so fidelity to AIPAC and all things zionist are part of the
picture. Not the fair-dealing, peace-loving lady many Americans would hope her to be.

Mind-numbing information. I am becoming ever more convinced that the brutal "strong men" of our species remain in control--even over the wisest in the arts, sciences and humanities! We've only had a few thousand years to invent "sustainable" cultures!

"Mr. Blumenthal, only four years ago you supported known hawk for Israel Hillary Clinton for her 2008 presidential campaign........"

Is not Blumenthal entitled to change his mind, grow, and evolve in his outlook on things? I don't remember his shilling for hawkish Clinton, but I do recall some of his stuff critical of Israel and the American right, and give him the benefit of the doubt that he can change his mind and grow politically. If we can't let people do this, then there is no hope for change.

Helen Thomas was courageous in challenging the war on Iraq, "Operation Shock and Awe" was international terrorism, killing thousands of innocent people. Hillary Clinton strongly supported the war and has not regretted it, Barak Obama opposed it and has ended it. Max has not criticized Clinton for her strong support of war on Iraq and her staunch support for Israel. There is nothing personal in honoring Ms. Thomas, her contribution to journalism, and knowing she has more to contribute. There is nothing personal in criticizing a small minority of Move Over AIPAC 2011 participants (Max Blumenthal, Jewish Voice for Peace, few others) for blocking Ms. Thomas from speaking. Max's effort to block Ms. Thomas from the first organized occasion to counter AIPAC"s destructive influence on US politics only indicates "he is a troubled person with a private ax to grind".

In my opinion Barak Obama was a far safer candidate than Hillary Clinton and has not been worse than Bill Clinton. Nothing I write can make you comprehend facts and keep you from further making a fool of yourself. You reply to each comment you fail to comprehend with ad hominem attacks with no challenges to facts. If you consider the facts, Obama is a better president than Max's choice Clinton would have been, and he with few friends kept Helen Thomas from challenging AIPAC and advocating for Palestinians.

His journalism skills and ethics must be scrutinized as every other journalist. It is other people's suffering and death he is covering, not his own and his self described privileged family and famous friends. He has not criticized Hillary Clinton and he blocked Helen Thomas from speaking, we need to scrutinize him for his conduct as a journalist. No, it's not personal, wars harm and kill millions of people, it's everyone's business.

Finally, Lidia, if you can't focus on the matter discussed and you can't confront facts, keep from making a worse fool of yourself, it only harms your credibility.

Helen Thomas was courageous in challenging the war on Iraq, "Operation Shock and Awe" was international terrorism, killing thousands of innocent people. Hillary Clinton strongly supported the war and has not regretted it, Barak Obama opposed it and has ended it. Max has not criticized Clinton for her strong support of war on Iraq and her staunch support of Israel. Both his mother and father worked for the Clinton administration, his father was a senior advisor to President Bill Clinton, and a senior consultant for HIllary Clinton's 2008 campaign. There is nothing personal in honoring Ms. Thomas, her contribution to journalism, and knowing she has more to contribute. There is nothing personal in criticizing a small minority of Move Over AIPAC 2011 participants (Max Blumenthal, Jewish Voice for Peace, few others) for blocking Ms. Thomas from speaking. Max's effort to block Ms. Thomas from the first organized occasion to counter AIPAC"s destructive influence on US politics only indicates "he is a troubled person with a private ax to grind".

In my opinion Barak Obama was a far safer candidate than Hillary Clinton and has not been worse than Bill Clinton.

Nothing I write can make you comprehend facts and keep you from further making a fool of yourself. You reply to each comments you fail to comprehend with ad hominem attacks with no challenges to facts. If you consider the facts, Obama is a better president than Max's choice Clinton would have been, and he kept Helen Thomas from advocating for Palestinians by few friends of Max.

His journalism skills and ethics must be scrutinized as every other journalist, he gets no pass because of his father or friends. It is other people's suffering and death he is covering, not his own, his self described privilege family's and famous friends. He has not criticized Hillary Clinton and he blocked Helen Thomas from speaking, we need to scrutinize him for his conduct as a journalist. No, it's not personal, wars harm and kill millions of people, it's everyone's business.

Finally, Lidia, if you can't focus on the matter discussed and you can't confront facts, keep from making a worse fool of yourself, it only harms you.

Everyone is "entitled to change his mind, grow, and evolve in his outlook on things", no one is entitled to their own facts, especially not journalists. He is in a profession which has established responsibilities, rights, standards and ethics which must be met so the public is well informed and won't make mistakes caused by journalists' mistakes. Journalists must serve the public, not patrons, not politicians. Most journalists failed to serve the public before, during and after war on Iraq. Helen Thomas was one of few who courageously confronted the matter on and off camera. Mr. Blumenthal did not give Ms. Thomas the consideration you are seeking for him, he chose to silence her for his own need, certainly not for the need of Palestine or US who need to hear her more than him.

Democrats have always been Democratic on domestic policy and Republican on foreign policy. I am disappointed but not surprised that Warren is the same. I'm not disappointed in Obama because I didn't have expectations about foreign policy, but I voted for him and will vote for him again based on his domestic agenda, and I don't regret my contribution to Warren.
This leaves the streets, not the voting booth, as the place to oppose the next war, and the war we're in, and all wars.

"domestic agenda"? You mean the law about jailing without trial and end or just murdering anyone whom Obama calls "terrorist'? Do not be SO sure you are immune from this. On the other hand, contribute to a Zionist is a NICE movie for a "progressive". Sure the supporter of murdering Palestinians and Iranians would use your money well.

Millions voted in 2006 and 2008 with the sincere – though mistaken -- belief that the Democrats would put an end to the brutal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But not you, evidently. You seem to be comfortable with the fact and even prepared to brag that you have voted for and given money to pro-war candidates. And you proclaim that a different set of principles should obtain on the streets. This is nonsense. You cannot help Obama incinerate children Afghanistan or pay for Warren to support the bombing of Iran and then tell us with a shred of credibility us to oppose it somewhere else.

The continuity between Obama and the liberal Democrats' domestic and foreign polices is precisely what needs to be exposed: wage-cutting, budget-cutting and an assault on democratic rights (NDAA, for example) at home and endless war abroad. This of course is the politics of the plutocracy that owns both major parties. The very problem is that the anti-war movement after 2004 became dominated by a social layer – typically upper middle-class - with such opportunist and unprincipled sensibilities.

Mighty Max Blumenthal does it again. Great investigative reporting, Max. Obama was a great disappointment to those of us who thought he would bring the wars to an end. Warren is using the same snake oil recipe. another bought and paid for stooge of AIPAC.

It would be interesting to get an account of how the process works with AIPAC. How do they approach someone like Warren? Is it all carrots, or do they use some sticks as well? I hear that each US senator and Congressman is assigned two AIPAC handlers (liaisons?). It's fascinating how our democracy has been undermined by a foreign power so efficiently.

"the Democratic Party hacks who are advising her"
"The same progressives who refused to vet Barack Obama's views on foreign policy when he ran for president in 2008"
"It is far better for progressives to grill her on her foreign policy positions before the campaign is over then after the next war begins."

Mr. Blumenthal, only four years ago you supported known hawk for Israel Hillary Clinton for her 2008 presidential campaign, you made pro-Clinton and anti-Obama videos, and you sought to get your famous friend John Legend to endorse Clinton, fortunately he endorsed Obama. Only one year ago you and few other participants of Move Over AIPAC 2011 blocked Helen Thomas from speaking. It is far better everyone grill you on your journalism ethics before the next war begins.